Not exactly sure if this works...please help revise. Also, it is a little too long so needs to be trimmed down. Thanks!
Prompt: Stanford students are widely known to posses a sense of intellectual vitality. Explain to us a time when you felt intellectually engaged.
It was a cold, snowy day, and therefore I was happy to hide out in a local, bustling café, grab a table near a heater, drink my scalding hot tea, and start the process of completing my ample amount of homework. After only a few minutes I noticed a boy, frantically searching for a seat. I recognized him as Mikey, a local artist in his early 20's, widely known as homeless townie and heroin addict. Despite this slightly disturbing reputation, I offered him a seat, as there were no available seats left in the café and he looked like he was almost to the point of hypothermia. He delightfully accepted, and quickly began to prod me for details on my life. As I explained the physics work I was attempting to complete, Mikey began to explain to me his theory on what life really is and how, in his mind, no physical reality exists. He believed that every person is really just a ball of energy, somewhat similar to String Theory, and that we create visual representations of a physical world as to distinguish between different balls of energy. Being that I am naturally science-oriented, I at first viewed Mikey's rambling skeptically and attributed it to his drug habit. But as I listened to him talk, I realized that actual reality of our existence isn't as concrete as most view it. As Mikey asked my opinion on the matter, I realized that it was something I had never actually thought about. We talked about this for over an hour, and it w one of the most stimulating conversations I have ever had. In a class room, teachers generally encourage students to understand the routes to an already established answer. My conversation with Mikey showed me that the most interesting, intellectually engaging topics are those with no solid answer, because these ideas force one to consider what they actually believe is plausible, rather than what a famous scientist has previously proven.